Another (wrong) view of Atheism
Aug. 15th, 2010 04:13 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
catsittingstillOkay--Dreamwidth ATE my long post on this for reasons I wot not. Which did not improve my mood. To be fair this replacement post is fairly long too.
Here: (eyeroll) "Anatomy Of An Angry Atheist" Hey--at least the author has *met* one, which puts him ahead of a lot of the "liberal" media jumping up and down on atheists' heads. What the flying heck the eponymous angry atheist was doing in the author's bible study class I have no idea.
There's a lot more here than I can cope with. But these did catch my eye.
The two contradictory stories of Genesis (go read them; they're only 2 pages--note the order in which man was created relative to other living things) about God creating living things, whole groups at a time, in jumbled up order, support and are supported by the explanation (that all life results from descent with modification over billions of years from a single ancestor species) of a large body of observed facts about the physical, chemical, temporal and geographical patterns of relatedness among all living things?
Um, no, dude.
Genesis that supported evolution would look something like this.
Long ago, longer ago than it takes for the spring rains to wear away a whole mountain, living things were only tiny tiny blobs, much tinier than you can see. Some of the tiny blobs became able to get energy from light, the way plants do now. Gradually, blobs that could endure, and then thrive in, the air that the plant-like blobs produced became able to clump together. And very gradually the clumps became more and more complicated. Some clumps became the distant ancestors of fish and shrimp--some became the distant ancestors of trees and grasses--some the distant ancestors of mushrooms and mold. And many of the tiny blobs remained tiny blobs. Reproducing and changing little by little as mountains rose, and were worn away by the rain and wind, and rose again, and seas moved into new beds, and ice came and retreated, and came again, they became all the living things on this earth today, including humans like you and me.
There--it's not very poetic--but it's as correct as a simplification can be, and stated in simple language.
And as for the "literally writes books" part---didn't you just say that nearly three quarters of religious people believe a supernatural entity wrote their holy book(s)? I grant you this is a childish idea, oh absolutely--but why are you ragging on atheists for having it?
You appear to want me to give religion credit for the good things it inspires but not the blame for the bad things it inspires. If I give other ideas that kind of artificial help, I can make pretty much anything look good.
I'm reminded of a joke. It goes, roughly: a religious man is caught with floodwaters rising around his house. He prays to God for rescue. A neighbor comes by, water splashing away from her four by four's tires. "Hey, do you need some help?" she calls. "Oh no. Thanks anyway. God will rescue me" says the religious man. The waters rise some more. The religious man retreats to the attic. A neighbor comes by in a rowboat. "Do you need some help?" "No thanks. God will rescue me." The floodwaters rise more. The man climbs out the attic window and up to the peak of his roof. A chopper comes by, stops and hovers. "DO YOU NEED HELP?" "No thanks! God will rescue me! Thanks anyway!" The waters rise farther. The man is swept away and drowned. He appears before the throne of God. "God--I trusted you! Why didn't you rescue me?" And God says "Hey, I sent a truck, a rowboat, and a helicopter. What more did you want?"
I look at that and I see religion taking credit for the good things people do, without even thinking about it. I don't see any suggestion that the neighbor with the truck, or the neighbor with the rowboat were doing nice things on their own--no, supposedly they did it because they were sent by God--and thus religion robs them of the credit for the good things they have done. And I think, gosh, if God is supposed to be so powerful, maybe he should go earn his own credit, instead of accepting other people's.
I remember one time I picked up a bunch of hitchhikers. There were a couple of women with them and I was afraid for what might happen to them. They piled into the car--it turned out they were a bunch of religious campers I guess would be the best way to put it, on the way back to their religious camp. One of them said something like "yeah, this was my first time relying on the goodness of God this way..."
I didn't actually say anything. I wish I had, but I'm not good at nerving myself up to confront people, even very rude people, on short notice. I wish I had pulled over to the side of the road, stopped, and folded my arms. And when they asked what I was doing I'd have said "Well, I drove all this way, and I read the map, and I paid for the gas, and if God's going to get the credit, I figure it's God's turn to drive now."
I didn't do it to be thanked. But I did feel like if they thanked someone, excuse me, but it should damn well be me, and not some stranger who had nothing to do with it.
So if you want me to give religion the credit for good things people do--no. Sorry, but that's unfair.
Imagine what might have happened if some innocent atheist had been in the wrong place at the wrong time. The sheriff would have abandoned the search for the real culprit (a couple of Methodist boys, as it turned out--and did we atheists get an apology? I bet you can answer that) and prosecuted the atheist. Who wouldn't have gotten a fair trial because the jury would be mostly Christian. Christians who read stuff in the news like the piece you just wrote. About how atheists are naughty little boys rebelling against authority. Like, for instance, by setting fire to churches, right?
Atheism is a lack of god belief. There are two ways this can happen. An atheist might have no concept of God at all. Never heard of it. Didn't know there was a subject to have an opinion about. Ponies to pick an example, and very small children, are this type of atheist. Or, an atheist might have a concept of God as non-existent. Not some impersonal force, non-existent. That's the type I am, for example.
Someone who thinks God is an impersonal force, on the other hand, is a Deist. This is actually very sensible--we see no evidence for God because God doesn't interact with the real world in any way, hasn't since the Big Bang; we think he stepped out for a donut and must have run into a friend. I don't think it's actually true, but at least it has the advantage of not conflicting with what we actually do see.
I'm going to quit here. I haven't said all there is to be said, but I need a break. And I bet, if anyone has even read this far, that zie needs a break too.
.
Here: (eyeroll) "Anatomy Of An Angry Atheist" Hey--at least the author has *met* one, which puts him ahead of a lot of the "liberal" media jumping up and down on atheists' heads. What the flying heck the eponymous angry atheist was doing in the author's bible study class I have no idea.
There's a lot more here than I can cope with. But these did catch my eye.
It's important to realize that, in spite of the popular conception that there is an inherent conflict between science and religion - between, in particular, the theory evolution and the Bible account of creation - these two actually support each other, and can be easily reconciled." I said.They support each other?
The two contradictory stories of Genesis (go read them; they're only 2 pages--note the order in which man was created relative to other living things) about God creating living things, whole groups at a time, in jumbled up order, support and are supported by the explanation (that all life results from descent with modification over billions of years from a single ancestor species) of a large body of observed facts about the physical, chemical, temporal and geographical patterns of relatedness among all living things?
Um, no, dude.
Genesis that supported evolution would look something like this.
Long ago, longer ago than it takes for the spring rains to wear away a whole mountain, living things were only tiny tiny blobs, much tinier than you can see. Some of the tiny blobs became able to get energy from light, the way plants do now. Gradually, blobs that could endure, and then thrive in, the air that the plant-like blobs produced became able to clump together. And very gradually the clumps became more and more complicated. Some clumps became the distant ancestors of fish and shrimp--some became the distant ancestors of trees and grasses--some the distant ancestors of mushrooms and mold. And many of the tiny blobs remained tiny blobs. Reproducing and changing little by little as mountains rose, and were worn away by the rain and wind, and rose again, and seas moved into new beds, and ice came and retreated, and came again, they became all the living things on this earth today, including humans like you and me.
There--it's not very poetic--but it's as correct as a simplification can be, and stated in simple language.
More than a quarter of religious adults - including about half of Jews - say their faith's sacred texts are written by men and are not the word of God.Um. I think you may be having some trouble seeing this from a non-theist point of view. To an atheist the fact that holy books are written by people is obvious. I mean--every other book is written by people; you have no serious evidence that this one is any different; so there's no serious reason to believe this one (or two, or whatever) is any different. If only one quarter of religious people can see the obvious, three quarters of them can't. Nothing to brag on there.
Only children - or adults who have never challenged their childish vision - think of God as some kind of super-being in the clouds who literally writes books and punishes those who don't do exactly as "he" demands. Yet this is how these New Atheists see God and the Bible, and they seem to assume that everyone else must as well.So, Alan, just out of curiosity--where are children getting this idea about God, if not from the religious adults around them?
And as for the "literally writes books" part---didn't you just say that nearly three quarters of religious people believe a supernatural entity wrote their holy book(s)? I grant you this is a childish idea, oh absolutely--but why are you ragging on atheists for having it?
Why do New Atheist stubbornly hold on to the wildly inaccurate claims that religion is the cause for most wars,I dunno--maybe we get confused by the four-to-twelve (most people settle on eight) Crusades, the European Wars of Religion, the Troubles in Ireland, the religious aspects of the Bosnian War, the rise of Islam and the Reconquista, that kind of thing. I grant you it's probably not true that most (more than half) of all wars are caused by religion. But--excuse me for mentioning it--isn't even one war really too many?
If their concern is that religion is non-rational and subjective, then so is love, art, music, altruism, and much that is most vital to our happiness and growth.So, how many wars have been caused by love, art, music or altruism? Yeah. So that's why we don't actually mind them, even though they're not purely rational.
Finally, the New Atheists seem to refuse to consider that religion has contributed anything positive. While religion has been used to bring much pain to the world, it has objectively brought much that is good, in the fight for social justice,Unfortunately you will find religion represented on both sides of the fight for social justice. There were certainly religious people who fought slavery. Equally certainly there were religious people who used religion as a justification for slavery and a tool for continued oppression of the slaves. Certainly there are religious people who fight for social justice now--but who is it they have to strive against? Oh, yeah, other religious people.
You appear to want me to give religion credit for the good things it inspires but not the blame for the bad things it inspires. If I give other ideas that kind of artificial help, I can make pretty much anything look good.
I'm reminded of a joke. It goes, roughly: a religious man is caught with floodwaters rising around his house. He prays to God for rescue. A neighbor comes by, water splashing away from her four by four's tires. "Hey, do you need some help?" she calls. "Oh no. Thanks anyway. God will rescue me" says the religious man. The waters rise some more. The religious man retreats to the attic. A neighbor comes by in a rowboat. "Do you need some help?" "No thanks. God will rescue me." The floodwaters rise more. The man climbs out the attic window and up to the peak of his roof. A chopper comes by, stops and hovers. "DO YOU NEED HELP?" "No thanks! God will rescue me! Thanks anyway!" The waters rise farther. The man is swept away and drowned. He appears before the throne of God. "God--I trusted you! Why didn't you rescue me?" And God says "Hey, I sent a truck, a rowboat, and a helicopter. What more did you want?"
I look at that and I see religion taking credit for the good things people do, without even thinking about it. I don't see any suggestion that the neighbor with the truck, or the neighbor with the rowboat were doing nice things on their own--no, supposedly they did it because they were sent by God--and thus religion robs them of the credit for the good things they have done. And I think, gosh, if God is supposed to be so powerful, maybe he should go earn his own credit, instead of accepting other people's.
I remember one time I picked up a bunch of hitchhikers. There were a couple of women with them and I was afraid for what might happen to them. They piled into the car--it turned out they were a bunch of religious campers I guess would be the best way to put it, on the way back to their religious camp. One of them said something like "yeah, this was my first time relying on the goodness of God this way..."
I didn't actually say anything. I wish I had, but I'm not good at nerving myself up to confront people, even very rude people, on short notice. I wish I had pulled over to the side of the road, stopped, and folded my arms. And when they asked what I was doing I'd have said "Well, I drove all this way, and I read the map, and I paid for the gas, and if God's going to get the credit, I figure it's God's turn to drive now."
I didn't do it to be thanked. But I did feel like if they thanked someone, excuse me, but it should damn well be me, and not some stranger who had nothing to do with it.
So if you want me to give religion the credit for good things people do--no. Sorry, but that's unfair.
Like Jackson Pollack peeing in Peggy Guggenheim's fireplace at a dinner party, or a little boy yelling "poop" in a classroom assembly,I'm sorry, but this is a fantasy. Richard Dawkins is a quiet, soft spoken Oxford Don. Christopher Hitchens is incisive and even confrontational. But he does not shout bathroom words or pee in the fireplace Good Grief! Both of them are willing to stand up to the sort of unexamined prejudice--even on the part of liberals--that is so vividly represented here in your post.
reveling in the insistence that they are a persecuted minority.We ARE a persecuted minority. We're the ones most people wouldn't vote for even though they thought we were otherwise qualified for office. We're the ones people would be most reluctant to have their children marry. We're the ones where, when five churches are burned down, the sheriff says "Oh, it must have been an atheist" without thinking twice about it. If he'd said "Oh, it must have been a Jew" would you see that as prejudice? Yeah, me too. But saying it must have been an atheist was okay.
Imagine what might have happened if some innocent atheist had been in the wrong place at the wrong time. The sheriff would have abandoned the search for the real culprit (a couple of Methodist boys, as it turned out--and did we atheists get an apology? I bet you can answer that) and prosecuted the atheist. Who wouldn't have gotten a fair trial because the jury would be mostly Christian. Christians who read stuff in the news like the piece you just wrote. About how atheists are naughty little boys rebelling against authority. Like, for instance, by setting fire to churches, right?
According to the Pew study, 25% of all American who claim to be religious see God as "an impersonal force" - the very definition of an atheistNow this is the problem. We get people writing about atheists who do not know the first thing about it.
Atheism is a lack of god belief. There are two ways this can happen. An atheist might have no concept of God at all. Never heard of it. Didn't know there was a subject to have an opinion about. Ponies to pick an example, and very small children, are this type of atheist. Or, an atheist might have a concept of God as non-existent. Not some impersonal force, non-existent. That's the type I am, for example.
Someone who thinks God is an impersonal force, on the other hand, is a Deist. This is actually very sensible--we see no evidence for God because God doesn't interact with the real world in any way, hasn't since the Big Bang; we think he stepped out for a donut and must have run into a friend. I don't think it's actually true, but at least it has the advantage of not conflicting with what we actually do see.
I'm going to quit here. I haven't said all there is to be said, but I need a break. And I bet, if anyone has even read this far, that zie needs a break too.
.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2010-08-16 12:31 am (UTC)As I was saying, these thoughtful discussions of the idtiotic perceptions of aetheism are most satisfactory.
To the issue of war, I would have added slavery, ritual slaughter, persecution, torture, systemic discrimination, deliberate dissemination of hatred, and a host of related activities. And we won't mention how often religion is used as the excuse for purely political motivations. I'm astounded that the writer you are commenting on did not take the opportunity to point some of the real postives religion has inspired: glorious art, poetry, music, architecture, and other artisitc creations. Oh, and it doesn't matter which religion, all of them have that capacity for inspiration, whether pagan or something more currently palatable.
You are completely on target about one thing: the writer did not have a clue about what aetheists believe -- or know to be true. Perhaps that writer cannot conceive of a mind which does not need the perceived presence of an onmiscient super-power to make each day worth living.
Keep it up. We "devout" aetheists have a hard fight for acceptance.
no subject
Date: 2010-08-16 12:49 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-08-16 02:35 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-08-16 12:06 pm (UTC)One can also say that religion has inspired a great deal of mediocre and really bad art and music, but that doesn't get the same exposure.
no subject
Date: 2010-08-16 01:41 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-08-16 04:31 pm (UTC)Depends on whose house you walk into; I've had to see plenty of it. :) But your point about church-sponsored art, especially the large-scale stuff like architecture or frescas, is valid. Of course, during a good deal of the last couple millennia, there have also been individuals with enough money to sponsor art on that scale, who have done so both for their private pleasure and as gifts to their cities. We don't live in a time when that sort of thing is expected of our wealthy, although I think the pendulum is starting to swing back... toward the presumption that the extremely rich owe the rest of the population a good deal of privately sponsored good works, at least, whether what they fund is artwork or not.
no subject
Date: 2010-08-16 02:45 am (UTC)And similarly honored that you consider these responses worthwhile.
Religion has inspired some people to create beauty--and other people to create horror. I...am not sure how these add up. Sometimes I wonder if religion simply brings out what is there already.
no subject
Date: 2010-08-16 10:13 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-08-16 07:47 am (UTC)It must be noted in passing that the only person Chris Mooney found to support his contention that the 'New Atheists' (pah! At 61, I do not wish to be called 'New' as I have been an atheist since my early teens, and Richard Dawkins is a good few years older than me) bully theists at scientific meetings turned out to be a lying troll.
no subject
Date: 2010-08-16 01:45 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-08-16 01:55 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-08-16 11:34 pm (UTC)Uh ... I don't think so. For me, it is mainly that churches, and prayers, and religion have no interest, nor meaning for me. Somewhere around 8th grade, after jumping through the hoop of Confirmation (Presbyterian church) in a vain effort to make the parents happy (for all of 5 minutes, maybe), I realized I'd done it for them, not me. And all the other youths in the class were off doing things which didn't seem to be particularly 'Christian' to other people. This did not make sense. I stopped trying to understand and just left.
no subject
Date: 2010-08-21 11:35 pm (UTC)Like a child on the playground sneering "I know you are, but what am I?" and with about as much maturity and thought.
The quote I like to remember is "If atheism is a religion, then NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." By that measure I do indeed have a religion. And a WHOLE LOT of hobbies.